sergiopereira wrote:Right now I'm hoping MS wakes up to the importance of Reflector in .NET and realizes they have a severe gap in the SDK without Reflector. I hope they either acquire this software and include in the SDK or create something similar.

If you think this capability would be more affordable under MS, please keep in mind that IntelliTrace, one of the cooler features of VS2010, is only available in the $11,899 Ultimate SKU. That's more than double the premium price, and almost 15x the professional price. I definitely don't see them buying Reflector and giving it away for free in the SDK.

-Scott

Not to get off-topic here, but I think a more reasonable comparison would be what MS did with the SysInternals tools (Process Explorer, et. al.), which are still free and have actually improved under MS' oversight.

There is a subtle difference. Mark Russinovich went with SysInternals to Microsoft with the intention of continuing development on the suite. In my opinion, this is why the quality of SysInternals is still as high as it is. While Lutz Roeder works for Microsoft, he's moved on to other projects.

SysInternals is a very good analogy though. SysInternals is an indispensable tool for the TechNet crowd while Reflector is indispensable for the MSDN crowd. I would imagine that if SysInternals became commercial, it would have taken a major popularity hit. Judging by what I've been reading here & elsewhere, I think it's safe to assume that Red Gate will be looking at the same situation with Reflector.

I think Red Gate has an outstanding reputation of improving the MS toolset. The quality of their products is second to none. Working on SQL Server without the SQL Toolbelt suite is like getting root canal without novicaine, but I think their pricing puts their tools out of reach for hobbyists and small development shops. Unfortunately, I think the announcement is going to do them more harm than good in the long run.

tlhintoq wrote:I'm a hobbyist photographer. I don't expect all of my tools to be free. I had to pay (dearly) for my 1000mm supertelephoto lens, and my Canon 7D DSLR. I just have to decide what is important to my hobby. Every couple of years it means selling one camera body if I am to buy a newer one.

Well, the thing is that Canon doesn't forcefully take away your camera just to force you buying a new one. And that's what is happening here.

That said, it's not about getting everything for free. But the community providing free tools and open source software lives from this give-and-take. And such a decision of actually revoking a free tool from the community is not the same as asking for money for new stuff.

AvonWyss, a Photographer's main 'tool' is their camera --a Developer's main 'tool' is their Development Studio. How is Reflector the main tool for a developer's trade? Clue me in!

JDelekto wrote:AvonWyss, a Photographer's main 'tool' is their camera --a Developer's main 'tool' is their Development Studio. How is Reflector the main tool for a developer's trade? Clue me in!

You're completely missing the point. Nobody was talking of the "main tool" for anything. In fact, the photography example was brought up by tlhintoq in the context of a hobby and therefore I replied to it.

The point is that users of Reflector V6, which actually did obtain a license to use it (whether it was free or not is unimportant - I had to agree to certain conditions in order to use Reflector), are being prevented to use their properly licensed software starting on May 30, 2011.

JDelekto wrote:AvonWyss, a Photographer's main 'tool' is their camera --a Developer's main 'tool' is their Development Studio. How is Reflector the main tool for a developer's trade? Clue me in!

You're completely missing the point. Nobody was talking of the "main tool" for anything. In fact, the photography example was brought up by tlhintoq in the context of a hobby and therefore I replied to it.

The point is that users of Reflector V6, which actually did obtain a license to use it (whether it was free or not is unimportant - I had to agree to certain conditions in order to use Reflector), are being prevented to use their properly licensed software starting on May 30, 2011.

No, I was addressing the point of your response to the 'Photographer', I think it was right in line. You were comparing apples to oranges. Second of all, this entire thread about "open source" is rediculous, since Reflector was a free application at the time it was handed over to RedGate, not open source.

Looking back, on how James Moore the General Manager of Red Gate acquired such a very popular tool. Where this tool was running for years for \"FREE\" where donations have been fuelling the said utility, imagine how many users this utility have and then after 2 years of acquisition fully commercialized the software... is this a joke?

Sharing you the conversation took placed after the acquisition of Reflector.

BC: “How did this deal come about?”
JM: “I’ve used .NET Reflector for years and it’s at the top of my list of great .NET tools. It’s also one of the few tools every developer here uses, so I knew I was not alone. A few months ago, I dropped Lutz an email introducing myself and it just kind of went from there.”
LR: “When James emailed me and we spoke about the future of Reflector and the resources Red Gate could make available to the project, it made the decision easy for me.”
BC: “How can it be good news that a commercial software company is taking ownership of a free community tool?”
JM: “I think we can provide a level of resources that will move the tool forward in a big way. The first thing we are doing is continuing to offer the software to the community for free downloading. The second thing is giving our product management and usability teams the task of going out into the community to get suggestions on how we can make this amazing tool even better.
We accept the fact that there will be scepticism, but we can point to a good track record of support for the community. People were wary a couple of years ago when we purchased the SQL Server Central community site, but over time we have won over many of our critics by investing heavily in the site and boosting its readership, while allowing it to maintain editorial independence. I’m hoping I will be able to sit here in a few years time and claim the same level of success with Reflector.”

If RedGate have the guts to commercialize this type of software, why didn't they create a new tool instead of acquiring Reflector? Is it because RedGate developers are incompetent with regards to creating this kind of tool?
The only reason I can think if is because... competition. If RedGate created a new tool, would they profit? If they acquire Reflector instead, they would also bring the users already using it for years. I could just imagine the number of users of this tool and convicing them that \"oh $35 won't cost much\". A very good business strategy don't you think? The heck, this utility would even give them a more profit than their existing tools.

The heck RedGate? Why did you even bother acquiring this tool if you can't even maintain the \"free\" features attached with this utility. Shame on you RedGate! Better create your own and sell them to whatever price you can think of!

@Lutz Roeder, if you are reading this, it would have been better to have this tool been turned over to open source. The open source community would have offered a lot to the improvement of this utility.

------------------------------
RedGate™
We acquire free softwares and convince the community its for a good cause.
We improve these utilities and sell them later.
We need more utilities, to all those free tools out there, sell them to us, we pay you big time but you must have millions of users before you sell them to us ------------------------------

kenro wrote:@Lutz Roeder, if you are reading this, it would have been better to have this tool been turned over to open source. The open source community would have offered a lot to the improvement of this utility.

...and how would mr Roeder have been compensated for spending years and years on this tool if he had turned it 'open source'?

Or do you really think he should give away his investment (time, money, etc) for free?

I presume you work for free, @kenro, but the reality is that most of the rest of the world don't. Bills don't pay themselves, supermarkets and gas stations don't give away their goods for free. Please explain to me why you think that Lutz Roeder or Redgate should give away their time/money/investment/IP for free, because I really don't get it...

it would HAD been better if this tool WAS turned over to open source. The open source community would have a lot to offer to the improvement of this utility.

@KristoferA, in reality, RedGate has a lot of tools that are NOT offered for free. And in reality, not all softwares are being offered with a price. These people offering for free just know HOW TO CHANNEL TO NEW MARKETS TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS. That is why google chrome is free, thunderbird is free, Open Office and so on... Heck, Firefox has even a lot of users than RedGate and its still free. Get it? Have you really woken up to reality Bro?

They can even put ads or something on the free version or whatever... JUST THINK!

This reminds me of what happened to netscape, how its started as a free version and they turn to selling the product instead and how it went kapooch after a few years burned down by IE. Only difference is that, the browser was their idea, for RG, bought from someone else...

kenro wrote:@KristoferA, in reality, RedGate has a lot of tools that are NOT offered for free. And in reality, not all softwares are being offered with a price.

Right. And I think farmers should stop charging for potatoes since they already make money from other crops.

I think it is very kind of all those who spend their own time and money on providing free software with no strings attached, but the reality is that most people [and companies] do need to make money on things they spend a significant amount of time and/or money on.

Redgate showed their goodwill by providing Reflector for free for several years after their initial investment. Without knowing any details, I would expect that they were out (at least) a few hundred thousand from day one and that amount has probably grown if the premium version didn't sell enough copies to cover the cost of the support/maintenance/dev team.

If they have determined that they can not recover their costs without charging a nominal fee to end users then that is their decision. I have zero understanding for those who are up in arms over that decision, because making that decision is entirely up to the owner of the IP involved...

...and why should they suddenly change their business model from a per-user-fee to some fuzzy google-adwords-like thing? If they are set up to operate one way and that works, then it probably makes zero sense for them to change the way they operate.

@KristoferA: I wonder what you feel if all browsers all of a sudden charge you with a nominal fee. You should even charge them for your support on them making so much revenue.

Read between the lines:
KNOW HOW TO CHANNEL TO NEW MARKETS TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS.

I never expected them to have such novice Sales Executives or whatever. And by the way, it was free before RedGate contacted Mr Roeder to claim this tool for benefits and sh**. RG bought this on 2008 just THREE YEARS AGO, this has been free BEFORE 2008. Version 4 was released on 2004: http://blog.lutzroeder.com/2004/05/net- ... or-40.html. The heck, all the basic functionalities in reflector are already working before they acquired this tool. from 2008 to 2011, what have they done? VS integration and some language improvements? the heck, add-ins are much more useful than this.

However, yes, it is still their decision since they have the right, it's just that, THIS IS ALREADY LEAVING A BAD IMAGE TO THE COMPANY. What is the effect? Open source community "might" just create another tool same as this. The customers lost due to this move will be more willingly to support the open source instead. (Like what happen to NetScape Navigator). And guess who will be making more revenue? The open source my boy! OPEN YOUR EYES MAN! This is what made IE and firefox so successful.

But as you said... it is still up to the owner. I'm just another person who is against it. Good luck!

kenro wrote:@KristoferA: I wonder what you feel if all browsers all of a sudden charge you with a nominal fee. You should even charge them for your support on them making so much revenue.

Redgate is a [relatively] small company in a vertical industry (SQL & .net tools). Comparing them (around 200 employees or something?) to Microsoft (90k+) or Google (30k+?), or their products to browsers is a bit like comparing apples to aircraft carriers IMO. Two completely different things.

They already do a lot more community freebie stuff than most other comparable software companies. They provided Reflector for free for three years, they run community websites, they sponsor .net/SQL user groups and conferences etc.

Right. Founded since 1999... hmmm... I guess the open source community is much more successful than them eh? Couldn't even maintain the reputation of Reflector being free for more than seven (7) years. We'll, I guess this is what to expect for selling Reflector off to a "commercial and relatively small company".

KristoferA wrote:I think farmers should stop charging for potatoes since they already make money from other crops.

Fair point. But if a farmer did give you a sack of potatoes for free, you wouldn't expect him to turn up on your doorstep six months later demanding that you either pay him or return the potatoes.

Once you've given something away for free, I don't see a problem with charging for future updates, but if you try to stop anyone from using the free version and force them to pay for the new version, you're only going to p!ss people off.